The debate on driverless cars

I have blogged earlier here and here about the role of agenda-setting in shaping the trajectory of ideas and technologies. A disturbing trend has been the capture of this agenda-setting process by corporate and elite interests. The example of driverless cars is yet another illustration. 

The widespread adoption of driverless cars throws up several public problems. Foremost, automating driving squeezes out the very large low-income occupational category of vehicle drivers. The technology creates taxis and vehicles without drivers. There is nothing on the horizon to accommodate the tens of millions so displaced. 

Second, in a world of driverless cars, making taxis cheaper and allowing more vehicles on the roads, will worsen the current preferential treatment that cars have over public transit. More people will exit public transit systems and the voices supporting public transport will be even more silenced. The public funding for mass transit will decline further and its neglect will worsen. 

Third, at a time when we are trying to limit transportation-related carbon emissions, this trend would work in exactly the opposite direction. 

These public costs will have to be weighed against the private benefits by way of greater profits to a few large corporations and greater convenience to taxi users and those who can afford driverless vehicles. 

The trickle-down positive externalities that supporters of such technologies claim are generally too slow to realise, too little to be of significance, and too concentrated among a few as to be of no relevance to the vast majority. In any case, these collateral benefits have to be weighed against the negative externalities arising from the elimination of an entire economic segment.

Surprisingly none of these high-level issues are considerations when decisions on the adoption of driverless vehicles get taken by governments. The San Francisco example is illustrative. 

FT has a long read on the debate surrounding a vote in San Francisco on whether to allow robotaxis on its roads. The support for robotaxis is overwhelmingly from corporate interests, many based in the city (GM-owned Cruise, Amazon-owned Zoox, and Alphabet-owned Waymo). They tout several benefits

Driverless car executives have touted the potential to bring dramatic safety improvements. Robots do not get sleepy, distracted or enraged. Nor will they drive drunk, talk on the phone or rush to get to work. For passengers who feel vulnerable hailing a ride with a stranger, especially late at night, a driverless car can be a sort of refuge.

Note the framing of the benefits of robotaxis - all centred around safety, convenience, and efficiency. No mention of any of the important aforementioned public issues. Once the debate gets anchored around the likes of safety and convenience, it's only a matter of time before the narrative overwhelms any opposition. 

The California State Public Utilities Commission, which regulates self-driving cars in the state, voted 3-1 to permit Cruise and Waymo to offer paid rides anytime during the day throughout the city. The seven hour hearing on the issue by the Commission was almost entirely on concerns of road safety. Even the dissenting Commissioner's vote was on concerns of safety. This narrow technical framing of the hearing, overlooking the important public issues mentioned above, is a teachable example of what's wrong with the decision making progress on technology adoption. 

The Commission's vote came overruling strong opposition from local officials, including the San Francisco Departments of Public Works and Fire Services, Municipal Transportation Agency, and Planning Commission. The local government has had no role in the decision, that was appropriated by technocrats in the State Government. 

Even the media debates fall unwittingly into this framing. Consider this from an article in NYT on the San Francisco debate,

Are the driverless cars an interesting and safe transportation alternative? Or are they a nuisance and a traffic-blocking disaster waiting to happen?

The article makes only passing mention of the serious social and public policy problems caused by the introduction of robotaxis.

We cannot also overlook the non-trivial technical problems - see this, this, this, and this - that driverless vehicles are unable to surmount even today. 

There was the recent incident when a fleet of driverless vehicles froze and blocked traffic during a Friday night concert at North Beach. Days later, an autonomous car got stuck in wet cement at a construction site, and then a robotaxi crashed into a firetruck responding to an emergency call. Weeks earlier, pet lovers were mortified when a vehicle struck and killed a small dog.

Corporate interests frame their endeavour as part of the widely accepted narrative of technological progress and have lobbied hard to capture regulatory and standards-setting institutions and important decision makers. They are right to believe that once robotaxis are introduced and are able to demonstrate successful adoption, the prevailing hostility and apprehensions among some groups will dissolve over time. 

It's not surprising given the financial stakes involved. To put that in perspective, it's estimated that investors have poured more than $50 billion into the idea of driverless cars even before one robotaxi service has been introduced.  

However, the marginalisation of public debates on the adoption of robotaxis to narrow technical issues, overlooking the critical public problems unleashed is a testament to the elite capture of the political institutions and the broken nature of the political process.